How much does it cost to phone home from there?
Truthiness is here.
Just heard Trump’s inauguration speech. A laundry list of imaginary perks and promises for all. May it henceforth be known as his Pony Speech.
“A Pony in Every Pot!”
Does Trump appoint the head of Drug Enforcement? Asking for a friend.
Perry for Ag, duh! He’s an actual graduate of an accredited agricultural college, which affords him the honorable status as an “Aggie”. In my native Texas, they are widely admired and acclaimed for their intelligence, wisdom, and acute insight.
Just making room for the Muslim Registry database. It’ll be huge. You’ll love it. It’ll be great.
Yes, in Texas.
The DEA is part of the DOJ, so yes.
So apparently the official First Lady page on the White House website was pimping Melania’s line of QVC jewelry, until it was pointed out in the press, and it quickly got removed.
Despite the fact it’s not on QVC anymore.
Here is a citation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/20/white-house-website-promotes-melania-trumps-modeling-and-jewelry-line/?utm_term=.bfc6b54905da
Wow, that is tacky.
How far down the autism spectrum are they?
Or are they just from such an insular little commercialized world that that they think this is normal?
Worth noting-- quoted from another thread.
That’s fair. I was trying to weigh overall performance, and I agree that Butz was more of a disaster for non-agriculture reasons. But you agree that Mitchell was worse, and worse in a more influential department, to boot.
So DeVos has that going for her: not the all-time worst cabinet pick in Bricker’s living memory. And as number two on the list, perhaps she’ll try harder.
The problem here is that “worse,” is a judgement call that depends greatly on how your own policy preferences align with the directions the nominee will take. As I observed above:
And you agree as well, I see, adding the caveat “IMHO,” to your assessment.
In the case of Sessions, I suspect there’s a significant gap between you and me and how we define “civil rights,” and what our expectations are for the Attorney General to enforce them. For example, I’d guess (and of course I could be wrong) that you’d call the issue of states passing Voter ID laws to be one of “civil rights,” and you want the Justice Department to invoke legal processes challenging states that require voters to furnish photo ID.
I don’t. I don’t agree that such requirements are impositions on civil rights, and I don’t want the Justice Department involved in discouraging such laws.
So in this respect, we probably disagree.
Do you mean this absolutely in all cases, or just in general? It seems pretty clear that, at least some of the time, such laws are instituted with the intention of making it harder for black people to vote. When/if such a motivation is determined, do you still think the JD shouldn’t be involved at all?
Those court rulings are mere opinions, and do not have the force and legitimacy of settled law. The other ones, like “valid neutral justification” are totally different, and have the advantage of being actual decisions, and not mere commentary. And since you would have to be a lawyer to understand the intricate subtlety of such distinctions, it is best if you just take his word for it.
Canadians denied entry into the US to attend protest marches, asked their religious beliefs.